STATE OF GEORGIA
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Georgia and South Carolina disputed the location of their state boundary along the Savannah, Tugaloo, and Chattooga rivers. The Supreme Court established that the boundary runs along the midpoint of the rivers' main channels when water is at ordinary stage, with islands in the Chattooga River reserved to Georgia, and authorized the states to jointly monument the boundary line.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
This cause came on to be heard by this court, and, for the purpose of carrying into effect the conclusions of the court as stated in its opinion herein, [257 U. S. 516],
It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the boundary between the States of Georgia and South Carolina is and shall be the rivers ¡Savannah, Tugaloo and Chattooga to the point where the latter river touches the North Carolina line at the thirty-fifth parallel of North latitude; and the location of the boundary line between said States is hereby established and declared to be as set forth in the opinion of the court, as follows:
1st. Where there are no islands in the boundary rivers the location of the line between the two States is on the water midway between the main banks of the-river when water is at ordinary stage;
2nd. Where there are islands, the line is midway between the island bank and the South Carolina shore when the water is at ordinary stage;
3rd.. That all islands formed by nature in the Chattooga river are reserved to Georgia as completely as are those in the Savannah and Tugaloo rivers.
4th. That the parties to this suit may at any time, by mutual consent, locate and monument the boundary line in any part of the boundary rivers in accordance with the provisions of this decree.
lit is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the costs of this suit shall be equally divided between the said two States, and that the Clerk of this court shall forthwith transmit to the Chief Magistrates of the States of Georgia and South Carolina copies of this decree, duly authenticated under the seal of the court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Georgia v. South Carolina, 497 U.S. 376 (U.S. 1990)…the middle of the stream, and (4) the location of the boundary under the Treaty was unaffected by the thalweg doctrine because of the Treaty’s provision that each State shall have [*384] equal rights of navigation. The ensuing decree is set forth at 259 U. S. 572 (1922).3 It is to be noted that this Court did not discuss the problem of emerging islands, that navigability was not itself a factor in determining the boundary, and that no map or chart illuminated the Court’s reported opinion. Neither of these…1 / 2
-
United States v. 450 Acres OF Land, 220 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1955)…orgia. Article 1 of the Beaufort Convention specifically reserved to Georgia all the islands in the Savannah River and the Supreme Court by its decision and decree in State of Georgia v. South Carolina, 257 U.S. 516, 42 S.Ct. 173, 66 L.Ed. 347, Id., 259 U.S. 572, 42 S.Ct. 597, 66 L.Ed. 1069, confirmed that reservation. It follows that the condemnation proceeding was properly brought in the court below, 28 U.S.C. § 1403, and that it was erroneously dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Reversed and remanded.…
-
Uhlmann Grain Co. v. Dickson, 56 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1932)…hat Congress, having entered the legislative field with respect to transactions in grain futures at designated contract markets, has superseded and displaced all state laws and legislation regarding such dealings. Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U. S. 495, 42 S. Ct. 597, 66 L. Ed. 735, 23 A. L. R. 229; Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, 25 S. Ct. 276, 49 L. Ed. 518; Board of Trade of Chicago v. Olsen, 262 U. S. 1, 43 S. Ct. 470, 67 L. Ed. 839; Chamber of Commerce of Minneapolis v. Federal Trade Commissio…
Authorities Cited
- State of Ga. v. State of S.C., 257 U.S. 516 (U.S. 1922)